|
Post by Ranna on Oct 6, 2005 21:43:14 GMT -5
I love to debate,(I'm one of those people) and one of the strongest things that I fight against is abortion. I'm pro-life, and I know that alot of people don't agree with that. Oh, and if this does turn into a...heated disscusion, understand not to take insult from me. Cause like I said, I love a good debate, and with something that means alot to me I can come on really strong I guess.
|
|
|
Post by Ultimate Ride on Oct 7, 2005 10:49:34 GMT -5
okay. What do you do if your in HS? do you want to doom yourself and your child to a bad life? cause with out your educcation that is what will happen. I mean comem on? it dosn't have brain cells it's not self aware. it's a bunedle of cells at the earliest detected. Come on. and don't give me that church= pro life crud. What were the crusaides?" cause those sure as heck didn't seem 'pro-life' to me.
|
|
|
Post by Ranna on Oct 7, 2005 14:27:08 GMT -5
The crusades, eh? Do you know all the history behind them? The people from the east, muslims and such, had been attacking the further areas of Europe. Okay, right? But they didn't just take them, they gave the people in the areas to chose, death, or conversion. Alot of martys pal. They are the Holy wars for that reason, to protect the christians that were being killed. Today they're are alot of misconceptions of what happened. I won't say that alot of bad things still didn't happen, they did. But that was the reason they started, and the main reason behind them.
Back to abortion, would you doom your child to no life? Think, if you had a choice between life and no life, which would you chose UR? What if your mom chose none? There are other choices, adoption for instance. Before a couple of months, the baby is already aware of his/her surroundings. At 7 weeks their heart is already beating. I would continue, but this post is already long as it is.
|
|
|
Post by Ultimate Ride on Oct 7, 2005 14:52:45 GMT -5
yes but at the age of abortion it isn't would you doom yourself to a life on the street? because i8f you drop out to have the baby that is what will happen. most liklly. or you just manage to scrape by flipping burgers at mcdonalds...
|
|
|
Post by Ranna on Oct 7, 2005 14:57:00 GMT -5
You don't have to drop out to have that baby. If you wish to have the child, you do. If you don't still have the child for his/her life's sake, than put him/her up for adoption.
|
|
|
Post by Ultimate Ride on Oct 7, 2005 15:35:19 GMT -5
yes you do. you get asked to leave the school. I've seen it happen at m,y sister's HS. your not allowed back. you don't get a HS diploma and it's all downhill from there.
|
|
|
Post by Rannaits me on Oct 7, 2005 17:31:50 GMT -5
*sigh* I too have seen things happen. But that was with that HS. I've seen loads of kids kept in school, heck last years graduation class at my school the valevictorian was pregnate. But that was my school. There are ALOT of options. Homeschool from there on, etc. If you look and do want a better life for yourself, or your child and are determined to find one you can. There are orginizations for it. Not to mention the age old, purity kind of thought. Don't get pregnant out of wedlock period.
|
|
|
Post by Rannaits me on Oct 7, 2005 17:32:30 GMT -5
*sigh* I too have seen things happen. But that was with that HS. I've seen loads of kids kept in school, heck last years graduation class at my school the valevictorian was pregnate. But that was my school. There are ALOT of options. Homeschool from there on, etc. If you look and do want a better life for yourself, or your child and are determined to find one you can. There are orginizations for it. Not to mention the age old, purity kind of thought. Don't get pregnant out of wedlock period.
|
|
|
Post by lya4c on Oct 7, 2005 17:35:23 GMT -5
1. Laws supporting abortion kill babies. To prohibit abortions vastly decreases them. Abortion are "absolutely necessary" in only two cases: the mother's health or the baby's health. Abortions based on the mother's health account for 3% of abortions. Abortions based on the baby's health account for 3% of abortions. Total: 6%. (Source: Forrest, J.D. & Torres, A. "Why Do Women Have Abortions?" Family Planning Perspectives) Women don't feel that abortion is "absolutely necessary." Women feel selfishly inconvenienced by pregnancy. To repeat, because abortion was made legal in the U.S., about 1.5 Million (1,500,000) babies are murdered every year in the U.S. by abortion. Every baby of the aborted 1.5 Million dies. Cold blooded murder is criminal, and should be treated as murder. (Killing a baby is sometimes, though rarely, medically necessary. This is not murder, and should be legal, just as killing someone in self defense is legal.)
2. Legal abortions protect women's health. Legal abortion not only protects women's lives, it also protects their health. For tens of thousands of women with heart disease, kidney disease, severe hypertension, sickle-cell anemia and severe diabetes, and other illnesses that can be life-threatening, the availability of legal abortion has helped avert serious medical complications that could have resulted from childbirth. Before legal abortion, such women's choices were limited to dangerous illegal abortion or dangerous childbirth. 2. Legal abortions protect women's health. Protecting women's lives preventing serious medical complications are valuable, and should be legal. Your own figures indicate that tens of thousands of women have health reasons for aborting babies. Your own figures indicate that millions of women abort their babies. This indicates a very rough estimate of 1% of abortions that are done because of the mother's health.
3. A woman is more than a fetus. There's an argument these days that a fetus is a "person" that is "indistinguishable from the rest of us" and that it deserves rights equal to women's. On this question there is a tremendous spectrum of religious, philosophical, scientific, and medical opinion. It's been argued for centuries. Fortunately, our society has recognized that each woman must be able to make this decision, based on her own conscience. To impose a law defining a fetus as a "person," granting it rights equal to or superior to a woman's - a thinking, feeling, conscious human being -- is arrogant and absurd. It only serves to diminish women. 3. A fetus is more than a piece of tissue. Yes, there has been argument over this issue for centuries.
Regarding Science and Medicine: Currently, all valid science and medicine is 100% clear that a fetus is a person. Practically, 100% of a person's genetic makeup is determined at the moment of conception. Science and medicine define being a person (human) by genetic means. According to science and medicine, a fetus is a distinct organism. Regarding Religion: Religion, on the other hand, is not as clearly defined as medicine and science, because religion introduces the soul into the situation. However, no religious leader would say that a fetus does not have a soul and that because of this a fetus may be capriciously aborted. Religious opinion is slowly beginning to accept science and medicine. Any religious leader with a strong practical grounding in scientific knowledge will have to admit that every embryo has a soul. However, regardless of when a person gains a soul, religious opinion does not show any support at all for abortion. In fact, religion is one of the strongest opponents of abortion. Regarding Philosophy: Philosophical opinion does show some variety regarding when a baby becomes a person. This is due solely to the fact that most philosophy is of ancient origin. Regardless of whether a philosopher believes ancient philosophies (which were developed before the discovery of cells, heredity, and DNA), the philosopher would not support capricious abortions. Conclusion: Neither science, nor medicine, nor religion, nor philosophy supports capricious abortions. In fact, there is a narrow band of belief in science, medicine, religion, and philosophy that life is valuable, should be supported, and should not be killed when the killing is reasonably avoided. In fact, those who believe strongly in science, in medicine, in religion, or in philosophy are some of the strongest opponents of abortion. Regarding Choice: Currently, some small groups run large campaigns to convince people that women have a "right to choose" to abort their babies. This is absurd. The choice comes in when the women decide to have risky sex. When people make choices, they must accept certain ramifications of these choices. Sometimes, people don't want to accept the ramifications of their choices, and try to find an unethical means to avoid taking responsibility for their actions. (By the way, how can any woman with a conscience abort her baby?) Regarding Rights: No one is saying that babies should have "rights equal to or superior to a woman's". That would be absurd. Pro-life proponents are simply saying that babies have a right to life. That is all. A right to life. If anyone can tell me how a baby having a right to life in any way makes its "rights equal to or superior to a woman's", I would greatly appreciate being informed about this! Regarding Development: You imply that a fetus is not "a thinking, feeling, conscious human being." Current, valid science indicates that a fetus is not a senseless mass of tissue, as some people have believed in the past. According to Planned Parenthood, a fetus is "the organism that develops from the embryo at the end of eight weeks of pregnancy and receives nourishment through the placenta; the fetus continues to develop until the pregnancy ends." According to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate® Dictionary, Tenth Edition, an organism is "an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent : a living being". In other words, Planned Parenthood admits that a fetus is an individual, and a living being! According to Dr. Ruth's Encyclopedia of Sex, "The beginning of the fetal period [is] arbitrarily designated by most embryologists to occur eight weeks after fertilization. At this time, the embryo is nearly one and one-half inches long. Few, if any, major new structures are formed thereafter; development during the fetal period of gestation consists of the maturation of structures formed during the embryonic period." In other words, the basic structure of the baby has already been formed! Planned Parenthood admits this. Now, remember, this is still within the first "trimester"! The baby has a small brain. The baby can feel pain. The baby can feel vibrations. The baby has vague vision and hearing. The baby has reactions which indicate a simple intelligence. Who knows whether a baby is conscious at this point? Admittedly, the baby is undeveloped enough at this point that its sensations and thoughts are not similar to adults'. However, the baby is a thinking, feeling human being, though admittedly undeveloped. Regarding Diminishment: For women to have the legal right to freely take the lives of their babies, whether on a whim, for their own selfish reasons, or for their own selfish comfort, "is arrogant and absurd".
4. Being a mother is just one option for women. Many hard battles have been fought to win political and economic equality for women. These gains will not be worth much if reproductive choice is denied. To be able to choose a safe, legal abortion makes many other options possible. Otherwise an accident or a rape can end a woman's economic and personal freedom. 4. Being a mother is the most important purpose of women.
Regarding Women's Freedom: Many are calling the 1990's the "Me Decade." One aspect of this is some women who consider only their own needs and desires, and disregard the needs and desires of others. This is most obvious when women are willing to kill their own babies (either born or unborn) to fulfill their own selfish desires. Every possible reason for abortion (other than serious health issues for the mother or baby) is a selfish one. Everyone, including men, women, and babies (born and unborn) should have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Regarding Mothering: No task is as crucial as that of parenting. Being a mother is the most important purpose of a woman. Being a father is the most important purpose of a man. Mothering (and Fathering) means having children and caring for them, often sacrificing one's own desires in order to provide the needs and wants of the children. This is the true definition of "parent." Without sacrifice, love is meaningless. Regarding Choices: Women in Industrialized countries have many choices. Regarding Equality: The "political and economic equality for" men and women is not worth much if men and women do not share the responsibilities of parenting. In Conclusion: Wouldn't it make better sense to consider the option of adoption, rather than the option of abortion? Waiting lists are never ending for adoptable newborns. Instead of losing his or her life, the baby instead gets a chance to have a good life with a married couple who highly desire a child to love, raise, and, in other words, parent.
5. Outlawing abortion is discriminatory. Anti-abortion laws discriminate against low-income women, who are driven to dangerous self-induced or back-alley abortions. That is all they can afford. But the rich can travel wherever necessary to obtain a safe abortion. 5. Legal abortion is discriminatory.
Low income women have much support and many options. Often, the families of the mothers are willing to assist the mother. Many government programs are also designed to help low income women throughout all phases of bearing and raising children. Finally, adoption is an excellent choice for those women who don't have the financial strength to bear parenting. All expenses are paid, and more, for women who are willing to adopt out their newborn babies. Legal abortion discriminates against babies. Any law which allows the callous, cold blooded killing of a life must be considered as discriminatory (at the very least!). Even the cold blooded killing of animals is proscribed by law, yet some campaign for less restrictions on killing unborn babies! Legal abortion discriminates against fathers.
6. Compulsory pregnancy laws are incompatible with a free society. If there is any matter which is personal and private, then pregnancy is it. There can [be] no more extreme invasion of privacy than requiring a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. If government is permitted to compel a woman to bear a child, where will government stop? The concept is morally repugnant. It violates traditional American ideas of individual rights and freedoms. 6. Legalized abortion is incompatible with a free society. How anyone can talk about "compulsory pregnancy laws" with a straight face is beyond me. Women who abort their babies were not compelled to become pregnant. Unless they are forced to engage in unprotected intercourse, they have many opportunities to avoid pregnancy.
7. Outlaw abortion, and more children will bear children. Forty percent of 14-year-old girls will become pregnant before they turn 20. This could happen to your daughter or someone else close to you. Here are the critical questions: Should the penalty for lack of knowledge or even for a moment's carelessness be enforced pregnancy and childrearing? Or dangerous illegal abortion? Should we consign a teenager to a life sentence of joblessness, hopelessness, and dependency? 7. Keep abortion legal, and more children will abort their children. The so called "penalty" should be enforced maintenance of any pregnancy which does not involve serious health risks to the mother or baby. "Enforced childrearing" is not condoned by anyone, and it is ridiculous to seriously consider "enforced childrearing".
8. "Every child a wanted child." If women are forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, the result is unwanted children. Everyone knows they are among society's most tragic cases, often uncared-for, unloved, brutalized, and abandoned. When they grow up, these children are often seriously disadvantaged, and sometimes inclined toward brutal behavior to others. This is not good for children, for families, or for the country. Children need love and families who want and will care for them. 8. Every child is a wanted child. Regarding the United States of America: People strongly desiring children are on lengthy waiting lists for the chance to adopt infants. In fact, adoptive parents pay tens of thousands of dollars in order to adopt, as well as submitting to various screening procedures. Adopted babies are treated almost as well as the biological children of married parents: they are not brutalized and abandoned. In general, the children which are seriously disadvantaged are those children who are fortunate enough to not have been aborted, but are unfortunate enough to be raised by the mother alone, without the father's assistance. In these cases, adoption is a better solution, too.
9. Choice is good for families. Even when precautions are taken, accidents can and do happen. For some families, this is not a problem. But for others, such an event can be catastrophic. An unintended pregnancy can increase tensions, disrupt stability, and push people below the line of economic survival. Family planning is the answer. All options must be open. 9. Choice is good for families. Choice is good for families. A choice which is sometimes not given enough consideration is adoption. A choice which is often used unnecessarily is abortion. Family planning means contraceptive measures, awareness of the potential responsibilities of parenting, and, if necessary, adopting out the baby. Family planning does not mean that abortion is "the answer" to "unintended pregnancy". Rather, family planning is avoiding an unintended pregnancy and dealing with it if it happens. All options should be used. However, abortion should not be considered to be an option unless there are serious health risks to the mother or her unborn child.
|
|
|
Post by lya4c on Oct 7, 2005 17:36:13 GMT -5
At the most basic level, the abortion issue is not really about abortion. It is about the value of women in society. Should women make their own decisions about family, career, and how to live their lives? Or should government do that for them? Do women have the option of deciding when or whether to have children? Or is that a government decision? Women should be able to make decisions about how to live their lives. Women do make decisions about how to live their lives. Women should have the option of deciding when or whether to have children. They do this by making choices regarding when to have sexual intercourse and what contraceptive methods to use. The government has no power to make these decisions, and it doesn't. Abortion is not a choice about women's value, family, career, how to live their lives, or when or whether to have children. Abortion is a choice between allowing an unborn baby to live or killing it.
The anti-abortion leaders really have a larger purpose. They oppose most ideas and programs which can help women achieve equality and freedom. They also oppose programs which protect the health and well-being of women and their children. I support any "ideas and programs which can help women achieve equality and freedom" or "protect the health and well-being of women and their children." I don't know these "anti-abortion leaders".
Anti-abortion leaders claim to act "in defense of life." If so, why have they worked to destroy programs which serve life, including prenatal care and nutrition programs for dependent pregnant women? Is this respect for life? Who are these "Anti-abortion leaders"? They sound like a real threat to society. Let me know who they are and what they are doing, and I will fight against them and their campaigns to "destroy programs which serve life." If they truly are as you portray them, they aren't my leaders, since I don't follow their opinions. I fully support life in all of its forms, especially human life. Anyone who supports life in general must also support the life of the unborn.
Anti-abortion leaders also say they are trying to save children, but they have fought against health and nutrition programs for children once they are born. The anti-abortion groups seem to believe life begins at conception, but it ends at birth. Is this respect for life? Once again, let me know who they are, and I will work against them. Who in his right mind could fight against health and nutrition programs for children?
Then there are programs which diminish the number of unwanted pregnancies before they occur: family planning counseling, sex education, and contraception for those who wish it. Anti-abortion leaders oppose those too. And clinics providing such services have been bombed. Is this respect for life? I fully support "family planning counseling, sex education, and contraception". I support any programs which diminish the number of unwanted pregnancies before they occur. Your mythical "Anti-abortion leaders" do not have any influence on the members of the pro-life group. The only pro-life group I can think of in the United States which opposes sex education and contraception is the religious pro-life. However, no religious pro-life group that I know of opposes family counseling or contraception based in rhythm methods.
Such stances reveal the ultimate cynicism of the compulsory pregnancy movement. "Life" is not what they're fighting for. What they want is a return to the days when a woman had few choices in controlling her future. They think that the abortion option gives too much freedom. That even contraception is too liberating. That women cannot be trusted to make their own decisions. You speak of "the compulsory pregnancy movement". Who are the members of this movement? Is this another mythical group? Compulsory pregnancy would seem to include forced impregnation. I must admit, any group which supports forced impregnation must indeed take freedoms away from women. Such groups should be stopped by any means possible. I and my fellow pro-life people, on the other hand, fully support women's freedoms, including the freedom of making the essential choices of when to have sexual intercourse and what contraceptives to use. These choices are essential in preventing pregnancy.
Americans today don't accept that. Women can now select their own paths in society, including when and whether to have children. Family planning, contraception, and, if need be, legal abortion are critical to sustaining women's freedom. There is no going back. Women should select their own paths in society, including when and whether to have children. Family planning and contraception are critical aids to sustaining many freedoms of both men and women. I hope that someday the United States of America will once again make abortion illegal. This will also give the right to life to the unborn and will allow them to have freedoms of their own when they are born.
|
|
|
Post by Ranna on Oct 7, 2005 18:11:52 GMT -5
Whoa. I'd have to say I agree with you Lya, and you pretty much covered everything I know. Not to mention that a women who takes birth control pills greatly increases her chances of breast cancer. They don't tell you that.
|
|
|
Post by lya4c on Oct 7, 2005 18:44:59 GMT -5
Thanks. When does the unborn baby's heart begin to beat? The heartbeat begins between the eighteenth and twenty-fifth day. When does the brain begin to function? Electrical brain waves have been recorded as early as forty days. How early can a baby survive outside the mother's womb? Currently, twenty weeks is considered the accepted minimum. However, this time will be reduced as medical technology continues to improve. What about cases of rape and incest? Pregnancy from rape is extremely rare. A study of one thousand rape victims who were treated after the rape reported no pregnancies. There are no known studies of incest cases. Medically, we know pregnancy in these cases would be rare. As reasons for legalizing abortion rape and incest are nothing more than emotional screens used by those profiting from abortion. But we must approach the victim of rape or incest with great compassion. The woman has been subjected to an ugly trauma, and she needs love, support and help. But she has been the victim of one violent act. Should we now ask her to be a party to a second violent act -that of abortion? Unquestionably, many would return the violence of killing an innocent baby for the violence of rape. But, before making this decision, remember that most of the trauma has already occurred. She has been raped. That trauma will live with her all her life. Furthermore, this girl did not report for help, but kept this to herself. For several weeks or months, she has thought of little else. Now, she has finally asked for help, has shared her upset, and should be in a supportive situation. more information But what about the child with disease who will die a slow death or live his life as a burden to his family? Do you believe the new "ethic" should be that we kill the suffering or burdensome? Some of these cases are tragic, some are also inspirational. We cannot assume the responsibility for killing an unborn child simply because the child has not yet been seen in public. The child's place of residence does not change what abortion does - kill a human being. What about the population boom? We can hardly feed the people of the world now! True, the population of the world is growing, but population is not much of a problem in the United States. With a birth every 8 seconds and a death every 11 seconds, the U.S. population is growing at less than one percent per year. (www.census.gov) Population growth or decline compares replacement of the current number of reproductive age individuals with the number of babies being born. By this measure, the United States is now in a sharp population decline. How can a girl give up her own baby for adoption and go through life never knowing what is happening to her child? Which is better to remember, "I gave my baby life. And because I loved him, I gave him into the arms of a loving couple" - or to remember, "I selfishly ended my baby's life?" Pro-life people are diverse in economic status, race, religion, and education. Yet, they are unified by the concept that all humans, especially the innocent unborn, have an inherent right to life. Here are things I believe as a Pro-Life person: I believe that the unborn child is human. I believe that abortion is fundamentally a Civil Rights issue. I believe that the Roe v. Wade decision, legalizing abortion on demand in America, was one of the most important and devastating Supreme Court decisions. I believe that a constitutional amendment should be passed that gives equal protection to all living humans, including the unborn. I believe that the violence inside and outside abortion clinics is morally wrong. I believe that rape and incest are horrible crimes and should be punished, but I don't believe that a child conceived from either should be killed. I do not believe that the government should fund abortions. Being a religious person, I believe that the Bible backs up my views on abortion. Here is what I think all Pro-Life people should be doing to help stop abortion: Click
|
|
|
Post by lya4c on Oct 9, 2005 16:17:43 GMT -5
Does anyone else have anything to say?
|
|
|
Post by Ranna on Oct 9, 2005 16:22:10 GMT -5
I don't think so. You proved my point, lol. I think UR's still swimming through all the info, lol. (I admit, I kind of skipped some areas at the end, heheh)
|
|